Advertisements

"Xophry K'un Le'im" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Hello,
>
> I want to use a pair of Cisco 2821 routers, each with 3 WICS
> (VWIC2-2MFT-T1/E1) connecting a total of 6 T1 lines to create a 9Mbs
> point-to-point link between two offices.
>
> I want all lines to be load balanced so that any user could potentially
> use most of the bandwidth.
>
> My understanding is that I can use CEF and enable ip load-sharing
> per-packet on each interface in order to accomplish this.
>
> Can anyone confirm, based on experience, that this is a sound plan?
>
> If this basic idea is sound, what options are available for setting
> priorties by MAC or Client IP address or otherwise limiting/controlling
> the burst rates?
>
> Multilink PPP seems to load-balance based on IP address, and therefore,
> if my understanding is correct, no ip conversation would be capable of
> exceeding 1.5Mbs. Is this correct?
>
> I appreciate any assistance you can offer.
>
> Xophry
>

Multilink PPP is the way to go. One flow can use the entire pipe with MLPPP
and the load balancing is almost perfect.

Got to ask the question though, for a 9 mbps link, have you looked into a
MetroE or MPLS connection instead traditional T1s?

We use PPP Multilink in our network. We have 4 sites that use multilink
bundles ranging from 5 to 7 T1s. We are using 2620 routesr on most of
these links, and it does make the CPU work hard. During peak traffic
times, the CPU goes to 75%, most of which is interrupt processing.

We have 1 2650XM that, under the same traffic loads, goes only to about
25%.

I have a mission crictical database application that will require 40%
of the bandwidth if all current database users are bursting at the
maximum rate simultaneously (rarely, if ever). Normal database traffic
will average 15-20% of the total available bandwidth of the 6 T1 lines.

Additionally, I need to support normal resource sharing traffic. I
want the database application to be able to utilize 40 percent of the
bandwidth if it needs it, and I want the resource sharing/network
management to utilize up to 95 percent of the bandwidth, if it is not
in use by the database application. The mission critical use of the
database can be isolated to certain IP addresses. Though other IP
addresses will require occassional database access, these ancillary
workstations do not necessarily require high-priority database access.

Hi,
CBWFQ is actually avaliable on the ISR's (i.e2800).. and think its
avaliable on the lowest avaliable feature set as well. Check the Cisco
Tools page for the IOS feature navigator to be sure.
It would work well for what your trying to achieve above. Ie. Reserving
Bandwidth in the event of of planned bursty congestion. No good reason
to use LLQ since little on no serialisation delay on a 9mb pipe.

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!